Nurse implicated in Hell's Angels drug bust but hospital fired her before any charges were proven in court
Drug possession charges were not sufficient reason to place an employee on an unpaid suspension, an Ontario arbitrator has ruled.
Cambridge Memorial Hospital in Cambridge, Ont., ran a women and children program that provided care in the areas of labour and delivery, post partum, special care nursery and in-patient pediatrics. With its care of babies and new mothers, the program interacted with many members of the public.
On Nov. 7, 2011, a local newspaper published a story about a major drug bust involving the Hell’s Angels organization and many other people, where cocaine and marijuana were seized. A nurse at the hospital was implicated in the bust and was charged with possession and trafficking of cocaine. The nurse’s husband was a member of the Hell’s Angels and also faced the same charges. The story was also reported in other newspapers and on television.
When the manager of the women and children’s program learned of the news story, she contacted the nurse — who wasn’t working that day — and asked her to provide information about the charges. The nurse said she might plead guilty, and said she had a court date on Jan. 5, 2012. The manager told the nurse to stay home with pay until further notice.
The manager didn’t hear from the nurse, so she contacted her in January for an update. The nurse said the court case was being held over indefinitely and asked if she could go back to work. The hospital decided that because the delay was indefinite, it would turn the nurse’s leave into one without pay as of Feb. 3, 2012. Though the hospital didn’t have any independent evidence about whether the charges were likely to succeed or that the nurse had taken any drugs from the hospital, but since the nurse’s duties included administering drugs and treating patients, it felt she shouldn’t be back in the workplace until things were resolved. The hospital was also concerned with its trust and reputation with the public if it allowed the nurse to come back to work without first seeing if she was guilty of the charges.
The union complained the nurse should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and there was no evidence the nurse did anything improper in the workplace. The union also argued there was no indication the hospital’s reputation was harmed by the report of the charges or any other staff members would be unable to work with her.
The arbitrator found the hospital had “an onerous burden” to establish facts that it would be detrimental to it to keep the nurse working while waiting for the trial. This was to protect the employee from suffering a loss resulting from a charge that could be dismissed.
The arbitrator also noted the hospital didn’t have any facts about the circumstances surrounding the charges and couldn’t make a judgment on what role the nurse played in the circumstances. In fact, while many of the people involved faced multiple charges, the nurse was only charged with one count of possession for trafficking and a lesser charge, which suggested she was less involved than the others.
